Climate-Exodus Expected In The Middle East And North Africa (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute in Nicosia have calculated that the Middle East and North Africa could become so hot that human habitability is compromised. The goal of limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, agreed at the recent UN climate summit in Paris, will not be sufficient to prevent this scenario. The result is deeply alarming: Even if Earth's temperature were to increase on average only by two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold. This means that during hot days temperatures south of the Mediterranean will reach around 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century. Such extremely hot days will occur five times more often than was the case at the turn of the millennium. In combination with increasing air pollution by windblown desert dust, the environmental conditions could become intolerable and may force people to migrate.

Comments

That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell them that if we don't take action soon, more Muslims will move to their neighborhood.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they'll find a way to kill them off and make it look like a accident. Heh, maybe the white man is doing this global warming thing on purpose. Don't put it past them. They're crazy motherfuckers!

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Praise the AlGore!

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[NotInHere]

I don't think republicans or anybody else will really care. If there are 1 billion people who want to move into your country with a few hundred million people, you always will have to say "no", even if they all were evangelicals or had other kinds of religions the republicans *would* like. The sheer number of it will just drown this religion argument, or any other argument. It will just be about bikeshedding issues about how to keep them all out of the place. Like whether to put automatically shooting devices at the border line or whether to man it with guards.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it will be all republicans saying no. lol.
Those Dem want to get more people here. So relying more on big government so we can bring on so socialism.

Re: That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodbye, Europe.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[chadenright]

Humanity has come reasonably close to a local extinction event a couple times in the last couple millennia. The black plague, in medieval europe, for example had about a 90% kill rate, comparable with what modern militaries would like to see in an engineered bio weapon.

What is new in the last century is that humanity is now capable of initiating its very own mass, global extinction event. Global warming could easily be comparable in scope, scale, and damage to a nuclear holocaust and the death toll due to global warming in the next one hundred years -is- going to be measured in percentages of total human population on planet earth. That is, in part, what this article is talking about. People are going to migrate or else they are going to die, and some of them will die.

Is this starting to sound like something you might be interested in? Homo sapiens, as a species, may in the near future cease to exist. I'd like our species epitaph NOT to read "Died from their own greed and nearsightedness." That is -your- greed and nearsightedness, in case you were wondering.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[MightyMartian]

The history of mass migrations suggest that even powerful states can be overwhelmed. Rome, Byzantium, Medieval Islamic civilization and China were all unable to prevent massive amounts of migrant peoples, and where the states weren't outright wiped out, they were heavily damaged.

Europe can't even cope with migrants from Syria and North Africa as they are. Now imagine what it would take to prevent many times more than that trying to get into Europe. Could Turkey hold them back? If Turkey fails, could the Balkan states prevent millions of people? And what about the Mediterranean, will the British Royal Navy start laying mines and sinking any boat that tries to get across?

The ramifications of massive migrations out of the Middle East and North Africa for Europe are enormous, and judging by the reactions to current migrations, I think we can see how destabilising and dangerous they will be.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[dwywit]

You're being selective. The plagues during the first half of the second millennium were estimated to have killed killed from 30% to 60% of the population of Europe+Asia. You're making it sound like it killed 90% - that was the death rate from people who caught it. The rest of the population either a. weren't exposed, or b. resistant.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Teckla]

The black plague, in medieval europe, for example had about a 90% kill rate, comparable with what modern militaries would like to see in an engineered bio weapon.

For what it's worth, I typed this into Google: what percentage of the population did the black plague kill

And got this:

Spreading throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population. In total, the plague reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[chadenright]

You are acting like quibbling over whether the number was 90% of the exposed population, or 30% of the total population, is important and you're ignoring my point. Let's take another example. Smallpox wiped out the great majority of Native Americans when they were exposed. How many? Nobody knows for sure. It was lots. Humanity is inflicting itself with another situation in which we will be quibbling over what percentage of the total population was killed or harmed by it, and the percentages could be similar. This is the point that I'm trying to make and if you're too cowardly to acknowledge it, there's not much point in continuing the conversation.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

The history of mass migrations suggest that even powerful states can be overwhelmed. Rome, Byzantium, Medieval Islamic civilization and China were all unable to prevent massive amounts of migrant peoples, and where the states weren't outright wiped out, they were heavily damaged.

Europe can't even cope with migrants from Syria and North Africa as they are. Now imagine what it would take to prevent many times more than that trying to get into Europe. Could Turkey hold them back? If Turkey fails, could the Balkan states prevent millions of people? And what about the Mediterranean, will the British Royal Navy start laying mines and sinking any boat that tries to get across?

The ramifications of massive migrations out of the Middle East and North Africa for Europe are enormous, and judging by the reactions to current migrations, I think we can see how destabilising and dangerous they will be.

The destination of the migrants doesn't necessarily have to be Europe. Folks can go North to the Caucasus/Siberia.

Re: That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

But, that would be perfect for the 1%ers. Fewer people to deal with, slaves to control, and the constant shadow of the solar cells they love.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[SuperKendall]

And you are acting like an outright lie doesn't color the rest of the message entirely. Which it does.

Try not lying so blatantly the next time you are trying to scare people into conformance with your religion.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese are already moving into Siberia. The demographics there are shifting already. Mao had always wanted to claim Siberia: soon his people will have it.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Oligonicella]

Global warming could easily be comparable

And it could easily not be.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

May they move to your neighborhood, infidel.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[rtb61]

That completely illogical statement takes into no account the current level of technology. Already you are seeing massive breaks being put onto immigration and fence and armed guards are going up all over the place. You can not have massive human migration without there being same place for them to migrate too and quite simply they will not allow it. Expect higher and higher fences and more and more heavily armed security and you can bet the will employ the same solution that immigrant Americans used against the American nations, biological weapons, they will spread highly infectious diseases on purpose in the refugee camps on the other side of the boundary fences. In stressed environmental conditions mass exodus of populations will not be tolerated, simply never happen. We have already hit a solid wall of rejection in Europe at the current numbers let alone ten times that and ten times current numbers would result in the use of biological weapons.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[swb]

Rome in particular is a questionable example of that logic.

First of all, was it even migration necessarily? Roman citizenship used to be limited to classes of people who actually came from the city itself. As time passed, the class of people who could be citizens and further regions of the empire were granted citizenship.

Many of the "migrants" who moved to Rome weren't migrants, but slaves brought to Rome after conquest of new territories. And I've also read a logic employed similarly to support contemporary immigration that they brought with them things that were appropriated by Rome for its own benefit, not to mention the labor value needed to support a growing civilization and city-state.

Plus by about 100 CE the Empire was geographically quite large, raising the question as to how much was migration and how much was just Romanized people moving around the existing empire. You don't think of people moving to Florida from Minnesota as necessarily a destabilizing form of migration, and a lot of the people who may have moved from Gaul to Rome were already living as Romans, speaking Latin and living in Roman cities in the provinces.

Some of Rome's problems in the late Republican period were due to mass migrations that had nothing to do with Rome. The Cimbrian wars were caused by mass migrations from Germania into Northern Italy, migrations that continued destabilizing the greater Roman frontier and largely serving to motivate Caesar's conquest of Gaul, which for better or for worse sorted out and pacified the regional conflicts of mass migrations into Gaul for at least a century if not longer.

To the extent that later mass migrations resulted in the fall of Rome, it's probably a better explanation that Rome had other problems, such as internal corruption and an economic structure that weakened the state and made a large frontier structurally unsupportable.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[ganjadude]

if i have 100 people, and 30 die - rebuilding is easy

if 90 die, not so much

yes, it IS a big difference, and thats the exact argument that makes people AGW deniers. instead of going with facts, a lot of global warming people like to push worst case and ignore reality

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Teckla]

You are acting like quibbling over whether the number was 90% of the exposed population, or 30% of the total population, is important and you're ignoring my point. Let's take another example. Smallpox wiped out the great majority of Native Americans when they were exposed. How many? Nobody knows for sure. It was lots. Humanity is inflicting itself with another situation in which we will be quibbling over what percentage of the total population was killed or harmed by it, and the percentages could be similar. This is the point that I'm trying to make and if you're too cowardly to acknowledge it, there's not much point in continuing the conversation.

I'm not quibbling or addressing your point at all. I'm just correcting a single factual error in your post. I'm not saying the correction strengthens or weakens your argument at all. I thin you're mistaking me for someone who is arguing with you.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm betting there won't even be mass exodus but rather a mass increase in air conditioners. The only thing stopping it is corruption and warlordism.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly, people live in the Sahara, and on Baffin Island.

It's nice that they've agreed warming shall not exceed two degrees. They should mandate tidal encroachment while they're at it.

Or, you know, stop with the same doom and gloom bullshit about running out of oil by 1980, not having an ozone layer by 2000, not having a north polar cap by 2010...

What you call "Deniers," we call "realists." What you call "consensus," we call "Hysteria-driven, panty-shitting statism."

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not quibbling... he's just wrong. The Black Plauge did not kill 30%, 60%, or 90%. The Black Plague killed 100% of Europeans and the entire civilization was wiped out. True story. Either we stop global warming by taxing the shit out of people who have more money then me... or the skies will fall, the oceans will rise, and Jesus will return. Anyone who disagrees with me hates science.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Reziac]

Also, the big migrations mostly happened after the climate cooled off (causing crop failures and famines in northern regions), not during the Roman warm period. By that point Rome had already pulled back and was falling apart internally.

Further, research on the Sahara indicates that during warm periods, it gets enough moisture that it greens up. Is that not more habitable than a rocky desert? North Africa was Rome's breadbasket (and had Roman cities which are now covered by sand). What is it now?

And finally, an average degree or two one way or the other makes damn little difference in how tolerable the heat is... I say as a longtime desert dweller who worked outdoors in temps up to +122F. But a couple degrees average cooling is sufficient to bring on an ice age. Which do you prefer?

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[david_thornley]

Ecologically speaking, humanity is an extinction-level event.

Diseases, however tailored, aren't going to wipe out the species. Nobody wants to engineer a biological weapon that will kill 90% of the population, because it's impossible to target those things precisely, and governments want to keep their own population more or less intact.

Global warming is going to cause a lot of problems. It isn't going to wipe out the species or destroy civilization. It could wipe out large numbers of people and be really expensive, but humans are good at adapting (themselves and their environment, doesn't really matter).

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[david_thornley]

You're referring to powerful states in periods where there were large populations of nomads, expert in mounted archery, and fearsome barbarians, so there were the awesome invaders vs. the terrified natives. That hasn't applied in centuries.

Nowadays, the natives have well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped armies, capable of dealing with many times their number of brave but less organized invaders.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Plumpaquatsch]

You're being selective. The plagues during the first half of the second millennium were estimated to have killed killed from 30% to 60% of the population of Europe+Asia. You're making it sound like it killed 90% - that was the death rate from people who caught it. The rest of the population either a. weren't exposed, or b. resistant.

That count ignores people that didn't die from the plague itself, but because e.g many of the healers died, resulting in death from things otherwise easily curable. Or because their parents died and couldn't feed them. Et cetera.

Re:That's one way to convince the deniers

[Stuarticus]

I trust your judgement, let's take that gamble. Or not.

And this makes the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

so happy. So happy.

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop with the bullshit.

There is no evidence global warming has killed anyone.

Cold, now that has killed 40,000 extra just in the UK in one winter due to being unable to afford heating due to higher bills caused by useless green costs added on the price of energy for no reason.

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[Locke2005]

Summer heat waves have killed hundreds in Europe (mostly elderly), although it hard to distinguish "global warming" from "normal variations in temperature".

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[MightyMartian]

You distinguish by looking at trend lines. That means you can't definitely say any particular extreme temperature event is caused by climate change, but you can look at the overall frequency and temperatures of such events and correlate them to other data points, and can say, overall, AGW is going to be responsible for many, if not most of them.

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

They truly are the party of death.

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're thinking of the problems in France a few summers back, that had nothing to do with heat, and everything to do with a government where social services effectively broke down over the summer, leaving many weak or inferm elderly alone for weeks because the scheduled visits by public employed health care workers did not happen.

That fuckup was entirely man made

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is no evidence global warming has killed anyone.

If you don't count the deaths caused by increasingly chaotic storms, sure.

Re: And this makes the Republicans...

[dave420]

Translation: "I don't understand the science, but I will act as if I do, as clearly the problem must lie elsewhere".

global warming still better then what NK can get t

[Joe_Dragon]

global warming still better then what NK can get to any one for 100,000,000 C

Welp, we're screwed.

[allaunjsilverfox2]

I'd be less worried about the human inhabitants and more focused on the flora / fauna. How many animals will die out due to heat stress? Is there an upper maximum for trees / plants? I'd guess at minimum, plant respiration would be hindered due to higher rates of evaporation.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[ShanghaiBill]

I'd guess at minimum, plant respiration would be hindered due to higher rates of evaporation.

Plants lose moisture through leaf pores. The pores are open to absorb CO2. As CO2 levels go up, they can absorb enough CO2 through fewer and smaller pores, so they lose less water. So higher temps will be bad for plants, but the higher CO2 levels will help mitigate the problem somewhat.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[BarbaraHudson]

Problem with that is the th emechanism of photosynthesis breaks down at higher temperatures and the plants will compete with us for O2 instead of being net producers.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Anonymous Coward]

the evaporation creates more rain, which has greened some parts of africa already.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Locke2005]

Most animals will simply migrate to areas more favorable to them. Plants, on the other hand, lack feet...

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[angel'o'sphere]

And how does the plant know it should grow smaller pores?

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[saloomy]

Angel-o-sphere, I'm not sure as IANAE, but I believe plants (and their leaves) naturally can control the pore size which helps prevent moisture loss during the night and days where its cloudy, so its a naturally occurring function for pores to open as much as needed to obtain CO2, but only as much as needed.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shssh, you aren't keeping with the narrative. They don't want to hear about any of the benefits of a warmer world because then that can't tax us even more.

What's really humorous is adopting sustainable practices for one's own life can make things cheaper in the long run. This is of course not good for capitalism, so fuck that idea.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[MightyMartian]

There are benefits, but the costs overwhelm the benefits.

A malfunctioning septic system may see your lawn grow greener, but that's usually followed by a sewage smell and a very large bill to fix the problem.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent analogy, well done!

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[ChunderDownunder]

The cleverer plants are tasty. Animals will ingest their seed and thus the plants' children will migrate to wherever the animals go.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more so than that, the leafs respond to many factors. Humidity, temp, co2, and other internal factors.

Plants do better with higher temps and more co2. The preferred 75F becomes 85F . When it is dry, they close. When it is hot they open to release hot water vapor.

At night, they release oxygen.

Within a green house, the issue to control is humidity, not temperature. Plants will release humidity to the point that the air is saturated, and then not be able to cool internally, and then a cascading failure occurs related to the flow of moisture stopping. Eventually, the moisture is pulled back into the soil through the leaves from the air, and by that time, its a lost cause. The hot moisture pulled down into the roots is the final blow.

The relation of CO2 to the green house, and the death of the inhabitants from overheating is laughable compared to what happens when the air becomes saturated with moisture. In the open air of the earth greenhouse, the local hot spots in green zones can wick the moisture out . All plants in the green zones do much better and so the green zone expands to release even more humidity. The scientists in geo sciences predict a slowing in the greening and use that to theorize that the benefits of co2 are short lived. Quite contrary. Plants within green zones will continue to thrive and grow vertically, consuming co2 as before, and produce better larger fruits than now. More humidity, more atmospheric cooling, more rainstorms.

If these clowns want to talk about 'green house' gasses, lets look at real green houses, and ask farmers who would love a co2 level of 1000-1500ppm.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, my fault. You sounded as if you wanted to indicate that plants in future will have smaller pores.

Re:Welp, we're screwed.

[Stuarticus]

This should work out great as long as we stop killing animals for eating our tasty plants and making plants whose seeds can't survive in the wild.

Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[SuperKendall]

Look at the seasonal variation of temperatures in Bahgdad.

A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[DigiShaman]

It's to give the globalist elite an excuse to import cheap islamic labor into Europe and America; all under the auspices of humanitarian aid caused by Global Warming.

Wrap this thread up, done and done!

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

an excuse to import cheap islamic labor into Europe and America

That sure isn't working for Europe. Most of them just go on the dole.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

114 is a cold day for a Tucson summer.

What are these climate-whiners on about this time?

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong as usual per people who don't understand the difference between the mean and distributional variance of a curve.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[ShanghaiBill]

A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation

For people, that is true. People are not going to die of the heat. But their crops and pastures will dry out. So the people will either move or starve. The problem is that there is no where to move to. Even Syrians, who are more educated and secular that most other Middle Eastern people, are not wanted anywhere.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[fustakrakich]

And the swamp coolers keep it pretty nice inside. I wasn't impressed with 114 either. Yeah, it's hot as hell, but it's nothing a little beer can't remedy. And with all that sunlight, they can power up enough air conditioners and desalinators to stay comfortable. It's not like the old days, except for the political bullshit, the region could be made into a real paradise.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[thinkwaitfast]

And Tucson is 5 degrees (2.77C) degrees cooler than Phoenix. Almost pleasant if ou are used to the later. Awesome monsoons too.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[quantaman]

Look at the seasonal variation of temperatures in Bahgdad.

A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.

Of course that's only kinda relevant if the temperature increases uniformly which it doesn't

In the Middle East and North Africa, the average temperature in winter will rise by around 2.5 degrees Celsius (left) by the middle of the century, and in summer by around five degrees Celsius (right) if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase according to the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8,5).

That's ~9F, would you consider that change in your summertime average to be inconsequential? The average high in Baghdad in July is 44C, if the projection is right it will become 49C, I suspect there's a few places you start to consider uninhabitable at that point.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Gavagai80]

People in Tuscon are wealthy enough to own air conditioning.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

The region hasn't been a paradise since the time that the Romans owned it. The folks who moved in later never seem to be able to get past the political (and religious) bullshit.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[thinkwaitfast]

I lived in Phoenix wen it got up to 50C one day and was/is regularly above 45C. And no AC either other than at work.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[angel'o'sphere]

A shift of a few degrees C is nothing
Says the guy who grasps nothing.

The link you gave is using Celsius as scale, not Fahrenheit.

This article is about: if global average increases by 2C then at "hot spots" that might mean 20C or more.

If at those hot spots such peak temperatures are reached, then the normal seasonal variation has doubled. And the peak is so high that you can't live outside anymore, that is much difference in reality.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[quantaman]

I lived in Phoenix wen it got up to 50C one day and was/is regularly above 45C. And no AC either other than at work.

And what if it was regularly 50C, and once hit 55C? You really think it's inconsequential?

(oh, and I don't know how the shift in means affects the max with climate, but people dying in heat waves is definitely an issue in parts of the world)

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[kheldan]

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but you represent a third of the problem:

The weather is nice where I am, so I don't think the problem is real

Then here's another third of the problem:

The weather is terrible where I am and it used to be fine
Followed by:
Oh, well, just because it's bad where you are doesn't mean global warming is real

Then the final third of the problem:

Oh hi we're climate scientists! Since you apparently aren't paying attention to what we're saying, we're going to say it louder and be more extreme to try to make you listen!
Followed closely by:
Oh, well, you're just being alarmists!

This is then exacerbated by extremists on both sides of the equation tossing around their conspiracy theories, pseudo-science, tree-hugging anti-human rhetoric, plain old-fashioned politicking, and the religious types who quietly tell you it's all part of "Gods plan", "the End Times are coming", and "soon there will be Heaven on Earth and none of this will matter anymore", or whatever other nonsense they spout. So nothing actually gets done to prove anything one way or another because everyone just keeps arguing. What will 'decide' if it's real or not will be if it either becomes Too Late To Do Anything About It (at which time everyone will continue to argue, this time about whose fault it is), or it just Goes Away On It's Own (in which case everyone will continue to argue, this time about who was wrong, who was right, and why).

You want the TL;DR version?

Doesn't matter, we're doomed one way or another, because humans are fucking stupid, especially in large groups

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Namarrgon]

Average high temp for a Tucson summer is 99 degrees, so no, 114 is not a cold day. In fact, there's only 7 days on record where it's ever reached that high.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[thinkwaitfast]

I can't tell the difference past 46. It just sucks, but you deal with it. Work at night or early morning when possible, drink lots of water. Same as below -15, it becomes difficult to differentiate. And cooling is less energy intensive than heating and is easily accomplished with zero CO2. It also maps well to solar.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[thinkwaitfast]

Also Cold kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[MightyMartian]

There was a reason the Romans thought the Huns were representative of the End Times. A civilization can be challenged to its core without all of humanity being threatened. But so far as the Romans were concerned, the threat was existential.

Now imagine millions more people than now are trying to get into Europe using any means they can to get there. If Europe pushes back by closing the borders and using military force to keep the migrants at bay, at some point they're going to get organized, and you may find some ISIL leader becoming the next Attila the Hun. Maybe the West can stop it, but the costs will mount, and one of the victims, apart of hundreds of thousands of people, will be much of what we long thought made the West superior and special.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[hey!]

Except we're not talking about Baghdad getting uniformly 2C warmer, every day of the year. We're talking about 60 additional hot days in the summer with the rest of the year being roughly similar to today. Those sixty days would, almost own their own, raise the year-round average by more than 4C (not 2C). For that to happen the temperature increase on these days be closer to +20C, rather than +2C.

A lot of denialist reckoning does this kind of simplistic reckoning -- e.g., assuming 2C global warming means exactly 2C warmer, uniformly distributed in space and season across the globe. That of course would only amount to a trivial change. But what you're actually going to get is vast increases in extreme weather (hot AND cold) which averaged out across the globe.

Think of it this way: imagine we hold the global increase in temperature to 2C. The amount of additional kinetic energy per unit volume represented by that additional 2C, integrated over the immense volume of the atmosphere, works out to be a staggering amount of total energy, which will change the patterns of weather. Since that immense fluid is rotating, the additional energy cannot mix and diffuse out uniformly and neatly; instead it will drive massive eddies of hot and cold migrating out of their old geographic limits. You'll get all kinds of extreme weather both hot AND cold, it just all averages out to +2C temperature-wise.

To put that perspective, current estimates are that we're capturing an additional 8 x 10^21 joules of extra solar energy per year, every single year.

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

I have lived in Tucson and I know what the temperature was. You can go pound sand.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[AaronW]

How about if you don't have air conditioning? A lot of people in the ME can't afford it and the power is often intermittent at best in many places. Also, clean water can be a luxury in many places in the ME.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, the Sahara is Greening...

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Hottest weather I've been in was sitting in traffic north phoenix in the early 90s. 126 F according to the car. Official temp at the airport that day was 124 F.

Not really sure 114 certifies as "uninhabitable"

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[dryeo]

That's not really true, lots of Canadian climate scientists lost their paychecks when they were told to stop talking and didn't.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[myowntrueself]

114 is a cold day for a Tucson summer.

What are these climate-whiners on about this time?

The problem isn't just the temperature, its the humidity. Past a certain humidity you don't lose body heat through sweating. Then you just cook from the excess heat your metabolism generates.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

The 'Feels like' Temperature is a recent addition to weather forecasts and is largely imaginary.

Are you saying that these ''Feels Like" numbers are what are being used to calculate the global temps?

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[myowntrueself]

The 'Feels like' Temperature is a recent addition to weather forecasts and is largely imaginary.

Are you saying that these ''Feels Like" numbers are what are being used to calculate the global temps?

Not at all.

As human beings we lose heat by sweating. If the air around you is saturated with water vapor sweating does not work. If the air temperature is high enough you will not lose heat and you will die.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

OK, that's not what we were discussing. ;)

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that >60% relative humidity, and you'd have something to worry about - because that's about the point at which sweating no longer cools you down.

But I don't think that happens in Phoenix, not in summer anyways.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing as long as you dont mind all those people moving into your backyard.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[pipingguy]

#ClimateScience reporting doesn't have to make sense; it's only there to sustain the alarmism and keep the government funding flowing.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Type44Q]

At what, five thousand feet above sea level? Apples to oranges. You should try Muskogee at 97 degrees. You can watch the mold spread across the wallpaper in realtime...

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[0111 1110]

You forgot the anti-simulationists like me. I can write a computer simulation too, and if I do write one I can pretty much guarantee that *my* simulation will not include mass migrations based on a 2 degree rise in global temperature which certainly seems absurd or at least very counter-intuitive. Somehow the current temperature, the exact one we have now is the only one in which human beings can survive? I call bullshit on that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Maybe my simulation will include aliens from a far more advanced simulation landing to help out equatorial desert countries as CO2 levels increase. Since it is a computer simulation and that is now considered science it can't be wrong. So it will have to be right.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[SydShamino]

Exactly. People who point out that Canada will become more arable (eventually) don't usually realize that Canada might not want a large influx of Americans, nor will America want a large influx of Mexicans who can no longer farm their lands. Even assuming the same total amount of land remains capable of producing food, the migrations necessary to get people near those lands will spark several wars and lots of pain and suffering.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Stinky Cheese Man]

But... Could! Might! Maybe!

We must act now before it's too late!

Because models!

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why you're talking about faking data. To me it looks like you don't understand the ramifications of statistical variation. A moving of the average leads to a much larger effect at the extremes, and especially when everything relation to temperature is exponential.

Besides, we're talking about people without air conditioners. Big difference.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Captain Splendid]

. As soon as it became political

When was that?

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Wilful ignorance is so sad...

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, it's kind of funny, but the Syrians are wanted everywhere they go, were it not for the racist, right-wing propaganda.
Germany is flush with new Syrian imports, and they are badly needed.
The Germans aren't able to reproduce to provide enough bodies for their own future, and the Syrians are an excellent "score".

But all it takes is a couple of bad apples and an incident or two, and the whole fucking Euro populations run screaming to their politicians.
And the media just fucking love it, cause it's so easy to rile up racist and nationalist sentiment in a region with so many languages, cultures and histories.

I don't know how we go about changing global perceptions for these climate refugees.But we have to do it, because they're coming, ready or not.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[danbert8]

This. So much this. The globe is probably warming, we probably have something to do with it. But do I trust computer models? HELL NO. Just because you can throw a lot of variables into a computer and have it churn out graphs and maps doesn't make that data analysis worth shit. Until you have done actual experiments and compared them with the predicted results of your simulation (you know, REAL science) those simulations are nothing more than an interesting science fiction. Write up a climate modeling simulation, take the baseline based on the data we have now, and in 10,000 years we can compared what actually happened to the model. Until then, all we have is wild ass guesses.

It doesn't matter how many variables you correct and how many adjustments are programmed in. The climate is a chaotic system with a ridiculous number of variables, most of which we can't predict at all.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL at "denialist reckoning"... You, you, "denialist" you...

Idiot.

www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[dave420]

Because they are not allowed to work, because so many delicate princesses in the countries in question are so scared of their jobs that people fleeing for their lives from warzones pose strong competition in the job market.

But please keep spouting your xenophobic, cowardly narrative. Whatever gets you through the night, appropriately-named Anonymous Coward.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[GameboyRMH]

Scott Adams makes two great mistakes in that blog post: The first is that he blames science instead of industry for industry-led pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns (diet and tobacco specifically, and presumably also climate). He lays it all at the feet of science for failing to overpower these efforts with hardly a finger shaken at industry. He is saying that science has a credibility problem because of industry's lies. That's bullshit.

The second is that he fails to see that the wrongness of science is relative. Apparently until some extremely stringent rightness threshold is passed, science's answers are uselessly wrong, and telling people to cut down on fatty foods to prevent obesity was as wrong as telling them that they're fat because they're full of demons. That's also bullshit.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[silentcoder]

I've said for a long time that the greatest loss of life from climate change will be people killed by other people. Resource wars have a tendency to be exceptionally brutal, especially when the resources in question are essentials like food and water.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[dave420]

How have the scientists lost all credibility? Their findings are fine - no one has managed to challenge them. The thing about science is it doesn't matter who pays for what - the findings must stand up to scientific rigour before they are accepted into the general body of knowledge.

It sounds like you don't understand the scientific method, and are looking for any excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. You are wasting your brain, but I think you know that, and simply don't care. What a wonderful example for future generations.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[silentcoder]

Tectonic drift was first proven on a computer simulation, we didn't have the technology to confirm it with first-hand observation until it had been consennsus for almost 3 decades.
That was done on an early predecessor of the PDP-10. The thing was archaic.

We have much better simulation systems now, much better hardware to run them on - and far better statistical analysis teams to set the parameters and figure out what the results mean.

I've never yet encountered and anti-simulationist who had a sane argument against using simulations to study things. Simulations have been the means by which we did experiments that were otherwise impossible for many decades. They are a key part of every field of science. If you reject them, you are literally putting us back to 1930 in every single field of human endeavour. That's pretty fucking crazy.
Einstein praised "Gedanken experiments" (thought experiments) as a critical part of the scientific method - before committing lots of time and money into testing an idea - first run a test in your own mind and at least try to figure out if it *should* work. Sometimes an actual experiments isn't even possible or nobody has figured out a way to do one (yet) so this is a key feature of science. Einstein used one to test the idea of gravitational lensing, we didn't have a way to prove it with a physical experiment until nearly 10 years later - and we only started having any ways of testing such things without waiting for rare events like Jupiterian eclipses in the last few years (and have recently used some of that advanced technology to test and confirm another of his predictions - gravitational waves).
Simulations have been key in recent refinements to and improvements to evolutionary theory as well.

Simulations are thought experiments taken to the next level. They don't run on quite so powerful a computer, true, but on the other hand they can be scrutinized - they can be adjusted and improved and re-run with those improvements - which makes them, over all, a great improvement.
Thought experiments have the problem that you can unconsciously alter the parameters of the experiment (like, say, the exact force of gravity) to show what you're expecting, a computer simulation places those parameters under peer-reviewable scrutiny.

It's true that even the best simulation is still not as good as a physical experiment, but where physical experiments are not actually possible they are a critical next-best-thing. We can't do a physical experiment to test the big bang theory (or compare two slightly different versions of it), because nobody has yet figured out how to build a control universe. But we can take all the knowledge we have, plug them into a simulation and see whether the results match predictions. We can't do an experiment to figure out how complex systems like eyes evolve because nobody has a control-earth to compare against, but we can create a simulation in which a simulated organism is put under selection pressure, with a simple light-sensitive cell and allowed random mutations with the most sensitive ones surviving to breed ... and confirm that within a hundred generations they have recognizable eyes - complete with reshapable focussing lenses like ours.

So why is simulations critical and accepted in every field of science (including ones like evolution which are infinitely more chaotic and difficult to predict than climate)... but not in climate ?

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the "problem": It's a fucking desert and deserts are fucking hot. Pretty sure no matter what happens IT WILL STILL BE FUCKING HOT. Hey, while we are at it, can someone do something about that pesky air that we have around us?

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Anonymous Coward]

Syrians are not wanted anywhere. You need to take your meds.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[dave420]

In other words you really have no idea what you're talking about. No data has been faked. It's not "statistically less likely to happen than getting hit by a meteor". It's not ONLY the summer, as has been explained to you time and time again. So yes, it is "straight-up" the realm of idiots and fools, as you made it up.

You are the only one here lying, and it's your religion which is becoming toast. Hint: If you find yourself calling the scientific method bogus, you might just be an idiot.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

Al Gore,

Also known as the "Goracle".

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

You're not paying attention then.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Captain Splendid]

That's a name, not a date.

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Do You Smell That]

Just a thought, but instead of spending the time telling the GP to pound sand, shouldn't you have asked your city why they're lying about their published weather data? At the least, ask them to install a weather station in your neighborhood, due to extreme local variation from the available measurements?

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

A good question and offered solution if I still lived in that god-forsaken state. As far as I am concerned it can pound sand too. Every pun intended.

It's been established that everyone that's crying 'the sky is falling' WANT to believe the sky is falling and refuse to examine the situation in it's entirety and place themselves at ease. I have mentally lumped them in with people that believe we are being poisoned by chem-trails and that the lunar landing was faked.

It's not worth my time validating and verifying every temp over the last 25 years ( The last time I lived in Arizona ) . Eventually, and it seems sooner than later now ( thankfully ) that the pendulum of reason is beginning to swing back towards the 'sane' side of things.

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[david_thornley]

I've been paying attention. I've seen a lot of people decide for stupid reasons that global warming can't be happening, and since climate scientists say that it is they need to come up with inane reasons why climate scientists don't have credibility. Maligning climate science and climate scientists is the hallmark of the denier. (Skeptics may be dubious of climate science, but won't make up ludicrous stories about a massive conspiracy or a whole field of scientists clinging to a false orthodoxy.)

Re:Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Plumpaquatsch]

Look at the seasonal variation of temperatures in Bahgdad.

A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.

Yeah, just like a degree over or below 0C doesn't matter to water. Oh wait, it does.

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Stuarticus]

I have mentally lumped them in with people that believe we are being poisoned by chem-trails and that the lunar landing was faked.

You mean people who don't believe in basic science and don't listen to experts in the field? Yeah, just keep trusting your gut, champ.

Re: Wrong as per usual Warming Alarmists

[Hylandr]

Science that's paid for by politicians.

Think it through, Champ.

Crichton was right

[bretts]

Global warming is stupid hype because we cannot look at the whole of human impact, which is regulated by population and not product choices by people in the 5% of the population that comprises the West. Climate fluctuates naturally. What does not is human use of land, which at this point is nearing epidemic proportions and will result in many extinct species. But you don't hear about that on the news.

Re:Crichton was right

[x0ra]

Nature has *naturally* extincted probably 99% of the whole species, a few more wouldn't really matter.

Re:Crichton was right

[angel'o'sphere]

Climate fluctuates naturally.
Does it?
Then name as many natural causes or named fluctuations from your mind as you can. Feel free to stop early if you think it is to much for us :D

Re:Crichton was right

[chadenright]

Global warming is stupid hype because we cannot look at the whole of human impact, which is regulated by population and not product choices by people in the 5% of the population that comprises the West. Climate fluctuates naturally. What does not is human use of land, which at this point is nearing epidemic proportions and will result in many extinct species. But you don't hear about that on the news.

Humanity has come reasonably close to a local extinction event a couple times in the last couple millennia. The black plague, in medieval europe, for example had about a 90% kill rate, comparable with what modern militaries would like to see in an engineered bio weapon.

What is new in the last century is that humanity is now capable of initiating its very own mass, global extinction event. Global warming could easily be comparable in scope, scale, and damage to a nuclear holocaust and the death toll due to global warming in the next one hundred years -is- going to be measured in percentages of total human population on planet earth. That is what this article is talking about.

Is this starting to sound like something you might be interested in? Homo sapiens, as a species, may in the near future cease to exist. I'd like our species epitaph NOT to read "Died from their own greed and nearsightedness." That is YOUR greed and nearsightedness, in case you were wondering.

Re:Crichton was right

[Teckla]

The black plague, in medieval europe, for example had about a 90% kill rate, comparable with what modern militaries would like to see in an engineered bio weapon.

Spreading throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population. In total, the plague reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century.

Re:Crichton was right

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that even mean? Do you grammar?

Re:Crichton was right

[Anonymous Coward]

people in the 5% of the population that comprises the West.

5%? I'd like to hear your definition of "the West". If you're talking, say, USA, Canada, the EU, Australia & New Zealand, that's about 895 million, about 12% of global population. Do you include Japan? That's another 1.7%. I didn't bother counting European countries outside the EU, but they add up to a fair number of people too.

Re:Crichton was right

[dave420]

You appear to be woefully ignorant of just what has been ascertained, and the level of confidence thereof.

You are getting your scientific learning from the guy who wrote Jurassic Park. Please stop.

Re:Crichton was right

[Anonymous Coward]

The Last Glacial maximum. The Medieval Warm Period. The Little Ice Age. There are plenty of other named fluctuations but most predate human history.

The warmest period in the human history, based on proxy data like the Vostok ice cores, was 1000 years ago.... before the industrial revolution and with about 5% of the current human population. Because it contradicts their religious beliefs Alarmists want to rename it the Medieval Warm Anomaly... because if it is an anomaly you don't have to explain it!

Re:Crichton was right

[Anonymous Coward]

NO ONE realized the BLACK plague may have been... Africans? Afroarabs likely, an exported disease and spread out purposefully. We Europeans are under attack and have always been, I live it every day.

No change there, then

[Anonymous Coward]

the Middle East and North Africa could become so hot that human habitability is compromised.

That's like saying Nevada might not be able to support dolphins.

Run away from bullets beheadings or global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah we live in the post-fact age. While more and more polls show that the public are just not buying the man made global warming scam, so they're throwing mud hoping that it sticks. Are people moving from 1 place to another? Must be proof of man made global warming. After 3 years of war there, wouldnt an ordinary person want to move on to save themselves? Nope, its just man made global warming - its worse than what we thought.

That this propoganda has made it to /. shows that the tactic is working.

More Great Editing

[chipschap]

This is in the summary:

"the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold"

This literally means that if the temp averaged 90F it will then average 180F. That's a lot of climate change.

Could we, you know, maybe have something that makes sense? Like "the temperature in summer in these regions will increase twice as much as previously expected"?

Slashdot may have new owners but the editing hasn't quite gotten there yet.

Re:More Great Editing

[JesseMcDonald]

"the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold"

This literally means that if the temp averaged 90F it will then average 180F. That's a lot of climate change.

It's worse than that, because 0F is just an arbitrary point on the temperature scale. The only sensible way to interpret a doubling of temperature is relative to absolute zero, so this means that if the temperate averaged 90F (305 Kelvin) it will then average 638F (610 Kelvin).

That is, indeed, well outside the range of human habitability.

Re:More Great Editing

[Anonymous Coward]

No No twofold is only increase by 2. So if it is 90 it will be 92.
lol. Climate change.
"always burning since the world been turning"

Re:More Great Editing

[thinkwaitfast]

It doesn't work like that because it's not an absolute scale.

First, convert to Kelvin. 90F = 305kelvins. Then you can double it. 610kelvins. Now convert back to Fahrenheit. 610kelvins=638F.

That's a lot of climate change.

It's far worse than you thought. 638F. That's hot enough to melt Lead an is 200degrees above the temperature at which paper spontaneously combusts.

"..increase more than twofold."

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even if Earth's temperature were to increase on average only by two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold. This means...."

Yeah, I'm not interested in what the contributor thinks this means. They are either an alarmist or an ignoramus. I'm not looking to get my climate science updates from either type.

Build a wall.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then take the oil, save the animals and let the moslems burn.

The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

Heck, we're talking about a 1.3 degree or so rise in global temperature. That simply ISN'T ENOUGH! After the next election there will be a mass exodus to Canada (the liberal drug policies have already made it unsafe for U.S. citizens to flee to formerly tropical paradises). When that happens we need Canada to be a lot warmer. Maybe ten degrees if we just go to Toronto and Vancouver, but a lot more if Canada expects to take American Refugees into the vast sparsely populated wastelands to the north. Lets quit thinking about the needs of the terrorists and crank up the heat for the needs of our own families. Think of the children!

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

In the months leading up to every US election I always keep hearing about how so many Americans will want to move up to Canada if or when so-and-so becomes president, and then it never happens.... even when that person wins the election.

Honestly, it's getting old... how many times do you think you can cry 'wolf' and people will believe you?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[BarbaraHudson]

The frozen tundra, even if completely thawed out, isn't suitable for farming. You're going to have to stop breeding so much no matter how you slice it. 1 child per family will probably be the world-wide norm in the coming years.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Locke2005]

My Alaskan friends don't seem to have any problem with global warming; they think it's a GOOD thing! I don't know why...

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Locke2005]

I beg to differ. Once the permafrost all thaws out, it can be farmed, but it's a mess for several decades while it is in the process of thawing out.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

Child, are you too young to remember the Americans who moved to Canada due to the politics of the 60's and early 70's? I know people who went, and the numbers were not insignificant.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

The lesson we learn from California is that any soil can be made suitable for farming, just add enough fertilizer, water and sun.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of those weren't simply dodging the draft?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[BarbaraHudson]

You'd better hope they don't thaw out - there's a lot of methane trapped in the permafrost, and methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Plus, it has a tendency to explode in the ground.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[BarbaraHudson]

And where are you going to get all that fresh water as supplies dry up?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[MightyMartian]

Forgetting, of course, the amount of methane trapped in the permafrost in Siberia and Canada, which would greatly accelerate the warming, as methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Re: The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah try telling that to muslim families with 7 kids if you get a word in before they kill you for not being their brand of muslim

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

Your example is not really a counterpoint to the one I was making. In fact, most of the Americans who moved to Canada at the time you refer to did not ever "threaten" to do so... they simply did, without any announcement of their intention in advance (in fact, to have done so would have defeated the purpose because of the situation they were trying to get away from).

My point remains... historically, almost all Americans who announce that they will move to Canada based on the outcome of an election before the election has even happened do not. If the situation is truly dire enough for them, they will move without feeling any need to announce it so long in advance. In fact, the very fact that they *CAN* freely announce such a claimed intention is actually proof that the situation is not that dire anyways, and probably not worth moving to another country for. At least not for most people.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[dryeo]

Well the warming isn't going to change the length of the days, something that most agriculture crops have been bred for.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[dryeo]

That'll change once the glaciers have finished melting and the fires really start burning.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

I'm arranging to melt the fresh water glaciers.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

What's your point? The length of days isn't shorter in most of Canada, the sunrise/sunset transitions are just a little different. In fact, if you go far enough north the summer day gets VERY long.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[myowntrueself]

And where are you going to get all that fresh water as supplies dry up?

The melting ice is pretty rich in fresh water

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[caseih]

Some Alaskans have a very different opinion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

Alaska and Northern Canada will be some of the very first places to see the more extreme effects of warming. In fact already the ice roads are less stable than they used to be, which will eventually have a huge impact on the ability to operate mines and other economic activities in the far North. To say nothing of the natives who are finding the drastic changes very damaging their their livelihoods.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[dryeo]

The growing season gets much shorter

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Oligonicella]

That wasn't because such and such got elected, it was to avoid the draft. Both Dems and Reps oversaw that conflict.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

Because it is much colder there, and the killing frosts come much later in the spring and much sooner in the fall, not because of the length of daylight. And we are working on fixing the frost problems with global warming.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[frovingslosh]

It was a politically driven exodus. Just like now we had two bad political parties trading power, it isn't like either party then or now was responsive to the will of the people. You only have to look at the statistics on how the will of the people has no effect on passing laws when either party is in power, and the will of big business and political contributors comes out ahead of popular opinion in passing laws no matter which side is "in power".

So I guess your point is that the 60's and 70's exodus to Canada was politically driven, just like this one will be.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[DesertNomad]

Define "not insignificant".

http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

Shows a fairly smooth and stable population for Canada, with no spikes in the 60's or 70's.

Could it be that your idea of "significant" is pretty insignificant?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

I said nothing about a politically driven exodus being something that never happens. I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do. It is less of a criticism that they won't ever move when they feel it is right for them to do so than it is a criticism of what they are saying, because what they are saying is usually just so much hot air if it involves actually leaving their home.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[bingoUV]

I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do

That is just making your claim more difficult to ascertain. For that, we need :

1. the number of people that claim to intend to leave in a certain situation; AND

2. the number of people that actually left in that situation; AND

3. the overlap between these people.

How do you intend to get these numbers? (1) and (2) are difficult as it is, (3) might be impossible for historical exoduses. Now, you can leave the burden of proof of *your* assertion to others, but that would be dishonest.

This also makes the claim useless and irrelevant in this context. The original post remains un-addressed, because even if people who say they would relocate to Canada don't relocate but others relocate, the need for pre-warming up Canada remains.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

You don't need to know (2) or (3) when actual immigration data from the USA into Canada can't even begin to corroborate the claim of (1). In fact, even the *TOTAL* number of people permanently residing in Canada who were born in the USA is only around half a million... which is barely a tenth of the number of people that said they would leave if Obama was re-elected. And that's the total number of Americans who've moved into Canada *EVER*... not just during Obama's run as president... and of course, there weren't any noteworthy spikes in immigration from the USA after the election either.

If you won't take my word for it... listen to what the Prime Minister has to say about it.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[bingoUV]

Your post is full of holes.

In fact, even the *TOTAL* number of people permanently residing in Canada who were born in the USA is only around half a million ............. that's the total number of Americans who've moved into Canada *EVER*...

No, others could be American citizens born elsewhere who now permanently reside in Canada.

only around half a million... which is barely a tenth of the number of people that said they would leave if Obama was re-elected

So 5 million said they would leave, and half a million left. Or 100 people left. That might cause your statement "I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do" to be considered false. Unless we know the overlap between the 5 million, and the half-a-million; or the 5 million and the 100.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[GameboyRMH]

1 child per family leads to a ton of retirees and not enough workers to support them, ask China about that (or even look at Japan's problems).

2 children per family makes a lot more sense.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[GNious]

Yet Canadian officials quote immigration numbers, that clearly show that Americans leave "when so-and-so becomes president" to go live in Canada - what evidence did you see of the contrary?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

Not even half a million left over that though.... that's the *total* number of people permanently living in Canada right now that were formerly or still are citizens of the USA. The number of people who have left in just the past few years is not statistically any different from the number of people who have been immigrating into Canada from the USA in the years preceding.

*THAT* is the what I refer to when I say that most Americans that say they will move to Canada over the results of a presidential election are just actually spouting bullshit. Millions say they will... and then after the election, nothing happens.

Okay... some probably do what they said they will, and I won't dispute that. But even if you allege that *EVERY* American that actually moves into Canada from the USA is doing so over some previously announced claim that they would do so because of election results, that number is not even 1% of the number that previously threatened they did (closer, in fact, to about 1/10 of a percent)... and there is no statistical basis to assume that all of them did anyways. While millions of Americans actually do threaten to move to Canada over election results in the months leading up to an American election, it is not anywhere close to a majority of Americans, so there's no sustainable reason to conclude that a majority of Americans that actually immigrate to the Canada had previously threatened to do so either. Even arguing the possibility that this *might* have been true rests on nothing but conjecture, while what I am talking about is supported both by actual historical immigration rates and ordinary statistics.

The last time there was actually a significant number of immigrants from the USA into Canada was in the 60's and 70's. And back then, they didn't publicly announce they were going to do it, they just did.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[bingoUV]

So you take back your statement that

  "I said nothing about a politically driven exodus being something that never happens. I said that when they *announce* that they are going to move to Canada because of something like an election, they never actually do."

?

Because in that statement, you were not concerned with the actual number of relocations, just the overlap (or lack thereof) between announced intentions of relocations and actual relocations.

Now you're saying you have no hope of ever getting information on the overlap, and are just basing your post on the actual relocations being low.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

My criticism is not even about the overap, per se... it's about the fact that so many people say it, when so few actually do. It's more about what they are saying when they talk about leaving their country (and then don't) than it is about any lack of taking action over what they might think is the right thing for them to do.

I expect this is particularly true for presidential elections than other kinds of political issues because even a terrible president will only be in power for a maximum of 8 years, which I suppose is viewed by most as being less of an issue on the grand scheme of things than leaving their country behind entirely. If the USA is truly a great country, and many Americans believe that it is, then in reality, it will take much more than just one lousy president to bring it to absolute ruin.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[bingoUV]

That is a fair statement, you had a weird way of saying that.

And yes, you're right, presidents have little actual power anyway.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[BarbaraHudson]

They're already melting - many have completely disappeared.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[BarbaraHudson]

So we need to improve geriatric care and slow down aging. We should want to be doing this anyway, because it's the one thing that will lower the burden on our kids as we get old. Do this, and 1 child per family is fine.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[mark-t]

I'm not sure what imaginary immigration numbers these so-called officials are quoting to substantiate the claim. While it may certainly be true that some do leave, the numbers are not significant. Consider that even though millions of Americans threaten to move to Canada before the election if the results are unfavorable, the immigration rate from the US remains fairly steady in recent years at about 7 to 9 thousand people per year, which is represents less than 4% of Canada's total immigration, and less than a tenth of a percent of the people that make threats about moving to Canada. Further, since most Americans do not threaten to leave the US in anticipation of an election, there is no reason to assume that those reasons are high on the agenda for most of those who chose to immigrate to Canada anyways. There may be other political reasons, but it is usually not because of who is president. Logistically, this is probably because the president's maximum term can only be eight years, which is probably not as big a deal in the grand scheme of things as leaving one's country. What's unfortunate is that there are so many people that don't realize this before they start shooting their mouth off and say they'll move elsewhere if they don't happen to get their way.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[david_thornley]

Yeah. All those people who promised to move out of the country if Obama was elected.... I'm still waiting, guys.

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Hognoxious]

President? I thought I was running for emperor!
- D.Trump, January 2017

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Plumpaquatsch]

How many of those weren't simply dodging the draft?

The draft itself and the reasons why it was instated were not politics? Horribly stupid politics resulting in far more damage than good?

Re:The Dems will see to that no matter what

[Plumpaquatsch]

My Alaskan friends don't seem to have any problem with global warming; they think it's a GOOD thing! I don't know why...

Because they are morons? Bet they elected Palin.

Move to Europe!

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest shithole.

Yay, more migration

[Anonymous Coward]

The syrian civil war was started because of a 5 year drought. We got 1 million new migrants in Europe. Unless we quit destroying the world climate we'll have 500 million migrants. Stop Using Oil Now! And retarded americans stop using gas guzzling cars.

Re: Yay, more migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Trident and tomahawk missiles will provide a solution to fix the immigrant problem.

Re: Yay, more migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Roger that.

Just give us the go sign...seriously. Islam and the rest of African have no place in the first world.

Re: Yay, more migration

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalin and Hitler would be proud of you for this final solution and holocaust of yet another semite people.

Re:Yay, more migration

[Dorianny]

The syrian civil war was started because of a 5 year drought. We got 1 million new migrants in Europe. Unless we quit destroying the world climate we'll have 500 million migrants. Stop Using Oil Now! And retarded americans stop using gas guzzling cars.

The drought was just the Last straw that broke the camels back. The tensions between the Assad family Regime and the oppressed Sunni majority have been simmering since Hafez al-Assad seized power in 1970

Re:Yay, more migration

[LynnwoodRooster]

Talk to Europe and Asia, not the US. Most of the ME oil goes to Europe and Asia; the US is a small percentage of the total (we get most of our oil from domestic wells, followed by Canada, Mexico and Venezuela). You're getting the immigrants because you're buying their oil.

Re:Yay, more migration

[Anonymous Coward]

We got more than 1 million 'migrants' (invaders, actually) because the JEW wants to destroy white people's living space by filling our countries with unwanted third world parasites. Why didn't the 'refugees' go to Africa? Not enough space there? Or not enough FREE stuff?

Kinda dated

[fustakrakich]

But somebody has been advising this

At Last!

[Anonymous Coward]

Peace in the Middle East, finally!

That isn't how bell curves work

[JoshuaZ]

That isn't how a bell curve works. If you move a bell curve slightly to the left, the big change isn't in the average, but is in how much you have where you end up sampling from the extremes of the distribution. This is why for example, China doesn't have nearly as many top-tier soccer players as some much smaller countries, or how the best runners are almost all Kenyan even though the Kenyan isn't much faster than the average in most other populations. One very controversial example of this is how some populations (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews) have many more Fields Medal and Nobel Prize winners than one would expect naively, but if you move the average intelligence up just a tiny bit, you get a massive change in how many really brilliant people you have.

Look on the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia and other northern areas will become moderately temperate allowing for unprecedented growth in agriculture and manufacturing. Global warming means more jobs when viewed economically.

Re:Look on the bright side

[BarbaraHudson]

Tundra, even thawed out, doesn't have enough topsoil to make farming possible. So forget that idea. Russia is going to be nervous about Chinese climate refugees. Both have nukes, and both share a common border in certain areas.

I think I've seen this movie

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure I saw a movie in the 80s that explored this very topic. I don't think the solution in the movie worked out in the end, but that was probably bad writing, more than prediction.

I don't remember the name of the movie, but the space marines were facing an alien horde and were badly outnumbered. They set up robot guns in the tunnels, which bought them a lot of time, and improved the odds by quite a bit. But in the end, they missed something, something that wasn't in the blueprints.

I'm pretty sure the moral of the story is that you need to have more than two robot guns if you intend to hold back a billion invaders. Fortunately, we have factories and don't need to rely on just what we can salvage from the wreckage of the Sulaco's first dropship.

A few more

[bretts]

Is it a few more, or everything but rats, squirrels, sparrows, feral hogs and cockroaches?

heat wave

[phantomfive]

Either people will find it unbearable and move away,
or the general economy will improve so much that they'll just buy air conditioning (like people in death valley).

more power generation

[xfizik]

More reasons to build thermal and solar power generation there.

Sucks for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I live somewhere that tends to be pretty chilly.

Climate: is there anything it can't do?

[jcr]

Yeah, I'm sure they're leaving their third-world shitholes because of a 1 degree increase in average temperature. Couldn't be anything to do with wanting to make a living in in a functioning economy.

-jcr

46C and Blowing Sand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Arizona.

So people can send Grandma to the Middle East or North Africa?

Twofold?

[ScentCone]

Who EDITS this stuff? If temperatures in the Middle East are going to increase two-fold, that's a LOT more than hitting 114F. Temps there already routinely exceed 100F ... twice that would be 200F. How about "would increase by several degrees." Except that wouldn't sound so horrific, which would take some of the fun out of the shrill rantiness.

Re:Twofold?

[MightyMartian]

In places like Dubai, regular summer temperatures could be around 117 degrees in the summer. In places like Kuwait City they could be as high as 140 degrees. That's by 2070.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

I'd say even 117 is pretty fucking hot, and 140 is beyond even the maximums recorded at Death Valley.

Re:Twofold?

[ScentCone]

Sounds pretty awful! Imagine if temps actually DID reach "twofold" there because of a global average change of two degrees. It's a bit crazy, their use of that word. If temps ANYWHERE on earth hit double, we'd be talking about a global changes WAY outside of two degrees.

Re:Twofold?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing, I remember it being triple that temperature only 4.5 million years ago. It will go back down eventually......

Re:Twofold?

[dave420]

It's not difficult to understand. The summary states that they will receive double the expected increase. If the extent of your argument is complaining about a slashdot summary, you might just want to stop now.

One shot, one kill

[bretts]

I'll mention an ice age here :)

Re:One shot, one kill

[angel'o'sphere]

You get one point.

Next point :D ?

The civilization disease

[bretts]

Homo sapiens, as a species, may in the near future cease to exist. I'd like our species epitaph NOT to read "Died from their own greed and nearsightedness."

Then find a better method of leadership :)

Adelaide, South Australia

[DiSKiLLeR]

> This means that during hot days temperatures south of the Mediterranean will reach around 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century.

We already get temperatures hotter than that (47 C) in Adelaide, South Australia.

It's why I left.

Fuck that place and fuck that heat.

Re:Adelaide, South Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from a place in Canada that is often -35 C from November to February, wanna trade places? :(

Re:Adelaide, South Australia

[ChunderDownunder]

Boris Johnson's Brexit plan involves a 4 country free migration zone with our 2 countries, NZ and the UK.

So there'd be no reason you can't buy a second house in South Australia. Travelling between them might accelerate global warming though.

Re:Adelaide, South Australia

[Kinthelt]

I'm from a place in Canada that is often -35 C from November to February, wanna trade places? :(

Wasn't this winter.

the opposite may well happen

[ooloorie]

There is a good chance that climate change will, in fact, bring more precipitation to Northern Africa:

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic...

Re:the opposite may well happen

[dwywit]

I used to trust the National Geographic, but since most of it was sold to R. Murdoch, I take anything from NG with a big grain of salt. Hang on, no - I just believe the opposite.

Re:the opposite may well happen

[ooloorie]

I used to trust the National Geographic, but since most of it was sold to R. Murdoch, I take anything from NG with a big grain of salt. Hang on, no - I just believe the opposite.

All that says is that you are intellectually lazy. National Geographic, in fact, isn't the source of this claim, they simply report it. You can track the information to the source.

Don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill O'Reilly says global warming is not real. All those scientists are making this up so they can get rich!

Not 110% accurate, apparently

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, the article, or one of them, rather, neglects to mention that this is summertime temperature, and not the overall region becoming year-round uninhabitable.

More rubbish relying on Mann's Hockey Stick

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been colder (4th and 5th Century; Little Ice Age) and warmer (Viking Era) than now in historical times, well before the Industrial Revolution. The hockey stick is a contrived falsehood.

"The polar bears will be fine.". -- Freeman Dyson

Less habitable, given air conditioning?

[GPS Pilot]

The assertion: these regions will be less habitable than in pre-industrial times, when air conditioning hadn't been invented.

Assuming this climate prediction comes true (very dubious, as no previous prediction has come true); sorry, but I'll take 46 degrees Celsius and an air-conditioned residence over 44 degrees Celsius and no air conditioning, any day.

Now, if you want to talk about people in that region not being able to afford air conditioning, that is a different problem, caused by insufficient economic growth.

Re:Less habitable, given air conditioning?

[dave420]

You might not want to post to opinion pieces at WUWT, but to actual papers in real journals. That's if you want people to take you seriously, that is.

lets thow a cat into the pidgeons

[Anonymous Coward]

Do many people find that their local official reported temperatures for each day seem consistently conservative compared to their own thermometers?

They were the worthless ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember them, the unwashed hippies runninge to Canada to save their own butts from the draft and the war their Democrat president started.

The truly principled liberals who opposed the idea of a draft or the war stayed in the US to oppose these things.

The truly principled conservatives who opposed the idea of a draft or the war stayed in the US to oppose these things

The truly principled liberals who may have opposed the idea of a draft or the war, but believed in national duty, joined the military or simply remained and faced the draft along with their peers

The truly principled conservatives who may have opposed the idea of a draft or the war, but believed in national duty, joined the military or simply remained and faced the draft along with their peers

The truly principled who believed in muscular foreign policy and "making the world safe for democracy" volunteered and went to war.

The worst were in two camps:

1. The hippie sorts who claimed all sorts of anti-war principles but then ran off to Canada to save their own butts

2. The young war hawks who supported the war, but thought themselves too valuable and elite to be risked and who protected themselves by hanging out at college (like Disk Cheney). The worst of these were the ones who (unlike Cheney) majored in any degree program that gave out easy grades that made them least-likely to lose their college deferments (subjective majors like journalism and education... which is why over 90% of US journalists self-identify as democrats or further left wing).

I had my issues with the anti-war activists in the US. The worst were the ones claiming to be peaceful but who, unlike Dr King, were making bombs and blowing things up (dirtbags like Obama's friend Bill Ayers). The ones who stayed in the US and acted peacefully were standing on principle and facing the authorities while trying to save their peers by changing things, thereby proving themselves respectable. The guys who ran off to Canada should never have been allowed to return - just one more appalling act of Jimmy Carter which was portrayed as an act of healing, but actually de-valued principled liberals and conservatives.

Re:They were the worthless ones

[frovingslosh]

Yea, lets criticize the "hippy sorts" when Nixon and Henry Kissinger believed the war in Vietnam was unwinnable and “simply wanted to punt the issue until after the 1972 elections, after which they expected South Vietnam to collapse.” And Robert McNamara even admitted this and that he was just sending kids to their deaths for political reasons believing that we could not win that war. But by all means, lets try to shift the blame to the dirty hippies.

Re:They were the worthless ones

[silentcoder]

You seem to have a real issue with Carter... odd for the man who is probably the most productive ex-president in American history. The man only went and eradicated and entire disease from humanity since he left office, and he is a few months from eradicating a SECOND one.

But yeah... a president who actively avoided wars and were more focussed on saving lives than taking them and has the sense to employ highly skilled scientists to tell him how to solve problems rather than lobbyists (and continued to do so after leaving office - which is how he achieved the eradication of one disease and is on the verge of doing it again) ... can't have that !

People who say

[huckamania]

'You're either part of the solution or part of the problem' are the problem.

I'm so glad that the El Nino is fading. The Warmistas certainly enjoyed the last year. Finally some warming to talk about. Statistically it's rather small and insignificant, and they had to cool the past again, but it's there. Now they have their fingers and toes crossed hoping that the slight rebound in Artic ice will take a nosedive. Where's the next major conference? Somewhere nice I'm guessing.

Re:People who say

[dave420]

You seem to be labouring under the impression that you know more than the climate scientists. Either you are mistaken or the scientific method doesn't exist. I wonder which is more likely...

Re:People who say

[huckamania]

A core component of the scientific method is convincing others that you are correct. So in that regard Mann, Hansen and Gore have done a good job. Another core component is matching theory to reality. On that regard, they have not done a good job. We are still awaiting the runaway warming predicted by Mann, Hansen and Gore. Still waiting for New York to be under water and the arctic to be ice free. Those are, for sane people, good things. Unless your livelihood depends on runaway global warming, in which case you continue to spout the same nonsense and hope that someday these things will come to pass.

As part of the 97% that believes that the climate is changing and that man is responsible for some of it, I try to keep up on the science as much as anyone. The difference is that I believe the heat trapping effects and lifespan of CO2 are low and that the feedbacks are not all positive. Compare that to M H & G who all believe the opposite.

Re:People who say

[Stuarticus]

Exactly, better keep waiting until it happens and then do something - same attitude I have with my car, the temperature gauge is reading a bit high and the engine is knocking, bit of coolant dripping out when I stop, odd burst of steam, the heater doesn't seem to be blowing warm air. No way am I getting scammed by one of those mechanics convinced there's something wrong though. I'll wait until my car is on fire at the side of the road before I start trying to do something about it.

I don't see a problem

[countach]

Just build more coal power stations and fire up your air-conditioning. Problem solved!

More 'Climatedot' bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This is getting ridiculous. Every.Single.Day. this website pushes 'catastrophic man-made global warming' alarmism, conveniently renamed 'climate change'. This entire article is bullshit, made up of MODELS and GUESSWORK, from people whose very jobs depend on SCARING people into giving them more funding. "Oh, the sky is falling in, you must pay us more money to 'research' how bad it's going to be."

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Not migration

[ThatsNotPudding]

Expiration. The one-percenters realized a few decades ago that with fewer and fewer menial jobs remaining, there would be waaaay too many of the underclass that could ultimately threaten their lifestyles and very lives. Thus military, environmental, and especially economic policies have been implemented to 'thin the herd'. Explains quite a bit, actually.

OR...

[PortHaven]

The increased warmth, and melting of the polar ice caps leads to an increased global humidity. This in turn leads to a reduction in deserts, and makes the north African and southwest Asiatic regions far more habitable. Allowing moisture to be captured and utilized to spur plant growth. Global Warming in fact could allow rich Arab countries to re-green their deserts.

Global Cooling in fact leads to more temperature extremes and an increase in equatorial deserts. That may seem counter-intuitive, but cooling increases ice caps, which in turns locks up much of the earth's water moisture, leading to dryer climates and increases in equatorial desert regions.

WRONG

[PortHaven]

Global Warming increases moisture vapor in the air. Their crops are not going to dry out, in fact, moisture traps will become far more effective allowing for a greater increase in biomass production and a reduction in deserts.

It's not just the increased moisture.

[PortHaven]

Plants need three primary things = sunlight, water, and CO2.

Global Warming increases available water moisture in the atmosphere. CO2 is more abundant. The result that is not being talked about is that a lot of the world is showing evidence of turning more green.

Um, guess what....that's called "Coming out" of the ice age folks. Most people do not realize that we are technically still in an ice age. Please note the existence of polar ice caps. Until those are gone, we are still in an ice age.

Nope...

[PortHaven]

The most recent report claimed that this was the hottest spring, and hottest March on record. So immediately, my presumption was, oh they mean globally because our region has been way cooler than normal - repeated late snows, frosts, we're in May and having March temperatures.

So I go and look at the map, and while our region is not painted deep red, from mid-atlantic to New England, we were painted light red representing 1-2 degrees above average. Okay, I've got to call BS. If anything, we've been 1-2 degrees below average. Even my hardy arctic kiwi lost all of it's leaves recently to frost.

So what are the possible explanation?

1. We're flat out being lied to and manipulated in order to serve an agenda.
2. The formulas used to try to correlate modern temperature measurements to older historical records, and paleological records are not accurate. These require a lot of guestimate and intuition. And I suspect this is where the real problem lies, I believe individual bias has led to an incorrect correlation. Mapping of modern satellite temperature readings to records of physical temperature collection hundreds of years ago down to 1-2 degrees is probably not a feasible task.

But when everyone is exclaiming where is spring, it's so darn cold, and you report that not just globally, but locally this is an above average warm spring. Something is very very very very wrong.

I'd accept this being the hottest spring on record globally. But to claim that regionally as well.....no way in hell.

Crichton's C.V.

[bretts]

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT...Crichton’s interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More interesting information at his website.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these idiots talking about? It already reaches over 120 deg. f in the summer here in VA. Nationals capital is here, no exodus happening. In order for it to be too hot for humans, it would have to reach upwards of 130-140 deg. f and we've had days here getting above 120 deg f. Yes, it's near impossible to breath, but it's habitable.

Afraid of having alarmists' predictions examined?

[GPS Pilot]

Examining the track record of predictions made by those on both sides of the debate has its place.

Show me a doom-and-gloom climate prediction that has come true. Just one. I have shown you 107 that have not come true. How many failed predictions will it take to shake your faith in those who make such predictions? 1000?

My own prediction, so far, has come true. Allow me to explain it.

Twelve years ago, I examined sea level data going back to 1850, and saw that
- sea level was rising at an average rate of 2 millimeters per year before humans started having an appreciable impact on CO2 levels
- it continued to rise at that same rate after humans had caused a major increase in atmospheric CO2 levels

I predicted that sea level would continue to rise at an average rate of 2 millimeters per year. (Really, it was a no-brainer to predict that that steady trend, which showed no influence from human activity, would continue.)

Twelve years later, my prediction has been right on the money, unlike those of the climate alarmists.

And does the fact that you don't take me "seriously" cause you to disagree with my main point: that an air-conditioned habitat, where the outside temperature is 46 degrees Celsius, is far more habitable than a non-air-conditioned habitat that swelters in 44-degree weather?

Re: And here I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you still getting your head banged against the wall? That could be the only explanation of why you are such an idiot. You simply need to quit sucking both of those kock Bros. Of course, trump probably does the same.

We ll need a fire barrier then

[Anonymous Coward]

Pun. Pleonasm. But true. We ll have to limit access to that population to the cooler areas. Why? Because there is already a population in those areas and it is reproducing! The affected warmed population can extinguish, ie, have no more children. Probably, they shouldnt have been in those zones for starters. Would be the natural outcome anyway, why favor one population over the other one?